UConn's share is larger than many AAC teams because the conference redirects more money from Big East exit fees to former Big East schools, but that money ends after the next fiscal year. That means UConn's revenue share will be considerably less.

Combine that with a drop-off in attendance in football and men's basketball, and UConn faces revenue challenges. The AAC is hoping for a more lucrative TV deal for football, but the current contract does not expire until 2020.

The revenue disparity between the AAC and the Power Five also is huge. The AAC reported revenue of about $79 million in the 2015-16 fiscal year. ACC revenue was $373 million, the Big 12 was $313 million and the SEC $639 million.

Quote:

"The difference is right now we average under 20,000 people a [football] game and [Power Five schools] average 90,000 or 100,000.

Quote:

. . . the Huskies pay football coach Randy Edsall a salary of $1 million, several million less than most Power Five coaches. The Huskies also pay the football staff, overall, far less than the sum of a Power Five staff. Of course, some of this is offset by the salaries of Geno Auriemma (five years, $13 million, through 2021) and Kevin Ollie (five years, $17.9 million, through 2021).

If UConn were to just drop football a lot of the financing issues would disappear.

Would they really drop football though in a country where football is #Heaven ? Maybe not in Conn but speaking for the entire country.

They could go back to the Big East that way.

The question is whether the Big East would want them back. The Big East is now all private schools that are primarily Catholic. Connecticut doesn't fit. Their best hope is that either the ACC or the Big 12 take them in, but neither appears likely right now. UConn can maintain their dominance in women's basketball as long as Geno stays, but their men's basketball team has already fallen off and with that the appeal of their program as a whole to other conferences.

If UConn were to just drop football a lot of the financing issues would disappear.

How would you respond to this paragraph from the article then?

"The misnomer with that thought process is that a lot of the money that we derive from multimedia rights — if you look at our ticket sales for football, even though they're not great right now, if you look at the multimedia rights deal, you'd lose the majority of those dollars if we said we're going to drop down to FCS in football," Benedict said. "I think most of those people are saying that because of the financial piece, but it's counter-intuitive because we're going to get over $9 million from our multimedia rights deal next year. … They're not going to pay us like that if we don't have football."

If UConn were to just drop football a lot of the financing issues would disappear.

How would you respond to this paragraph from the article then?

"The misnomer with that thought process is that a lot of the money that we derive from multimedia rights — if you look at our ticket sales for football, even though they're not great right now, if you look at the multimedia rights deal, you'd lose the majority of those dollars if we said we're going to drop down to FCS in football," Benedict said. "I think most of those people are saying that because of the financial piece, but it's counter-intuitive because we're going to get over $9 million from our multimedia rights deal next year. … They're not going to pay us like that if we don't have football."

I suppose I'd ask how much they're losing on football? Is it more than $9 million?

If UConn were to just drop football a lot of the financing issues would disappear.

Would they really drop football though in a country where football is #Heaven ? Maybe not in Conn but speaking for the entire country.

I doubt it. There are too many people making a living off of college football.

High school and college football just isn't a huge thing in CT. There are three pro teams within a couple of hour's drive from about anywhere in CT and people support those teams. I haven't watched a college game in 20 years.

Everything goes in cycles and while you may think that college football is heaven there is a dark side to the sport where the massive use of PED's, traumatic head injuries and gambling reside. Look at the size of players. When I was in college a big pro tackle was 260 lbs. Today they are 320+ lbs. That isn't due to evolution. High school boys are basically told that they need to bulk up if they want a scholarship and no one adds 40 lbs of muscle by lifting alone. There are billions of dollars at stake in keeping the dark side of football in the shadows. First in that line is the media. But things change. Remember, boxing was once one the most watched sports in the country.

When UConn football was winning, didn't they get good attendance and presumably make a lot of money? Right now UConn is bad but the hard part about these financial projections is you are assuming the current performance and attendance is going to flat line. If UConn can get back to their winning ways, does that change the economics of their athletics department? That's the thing with football, the upside is so high financially.

Gonzaga doesn't have football but they never did, right? It's hard to take away football at a school that invested a lot in it, won, made a BCS bowl even, and just take it away.

Their football stadium seats 40,000. With the exception of some old-time rivalries like the Harvard-Yale game, football isn't a big-time draw in New England like it is in the large public universities of the South and Midwest. (Note that Harvard's Stadium only seats 30K.)

So I cover Cal football for a website, and due to a variety of circumstances, many of the home games are at 7:30 p.m. -- which the fans hate. The games don't get over until after 11, the traffic must be battled, and it's also cold on occasion.

And that impacts attendance, no question, but the ratio of money from ticket sales to that of TV money makes the attendance pretty much irrelevant to the bottom line. And since Cal is struggling mightily financially due to the necessity to earthquake-proof its ancient stadium, the bottom line is the key. (And game times are set by TV networks as a result of a Pac-12 contract, so there's nothing Cal can do anyway.)

A difference of 10,000 fans in attendance is a significant amount of money, no question, but the TV deals more than make up for it.

So I cover Cal football for a website, and due to a variety of circumstances, many of the home games are at 7:30 p.m. -- which the fans hate. The games don't get over until after 11, the traffic must be battled, and it's also cold on occasion.

And that impacts attendance, no question, but the ratio of money from ticket sales to that of TV money makes the attendance pretty much irrelevant to the bottom line. And since Cal is struggling mightily financially due to the necessity to earthquake-proof its ancient stadium, the bottom line is the key. (And game times are set by TV networks as a result of a Pac-12 contract, so there's nothing Cal can do anyway.)

A difference of 10,000 fans in attendance is a significant amount of money, no question, but the TV deals more than make up for it.

This is especially true for me. Driving 3 1/2-4 hours each way is tough enough for a game starting at 1 pm, but when the game starts at 7:30 I either have to get a hotel (not cheap in the Bay Area) or get home at 4 am. Add in the traffic and parking hassle and its hard to justify more than a couple of games per year.

I think you underestimate the revenue from live attendance at schools that actually draw. At Notre Dame, for example, the weighted average ticket price is $115. Times 80,000 sold is $9.2M per game. Plus considerable revenue from sky suites and premium seats, plus parking, concessions, t-shirts , and the per game is closer to $12M, Times six home games per year. $70 million before ever considering TV money is a lot if money.

I think you underestimate the revenue from live attendance at schools that actually draw. At Notre Dame, for example, the weighted average ticket price is $115. Times 80,000 sold is $9.2M per game. Plus considerable revenue from sky suites and premium seats, plus parking, concessions, t-shirts , and the per game is closer to $12M, Times six home games per year. $70 million before ever considering TV money is a lot if money.

And there are schools filling stadiums with 100,000+ fans.

And you haven't even mentioned that alumni must donate money just to get football tickets. I would consider that income as football ticket money as well.

The linked article in the OP says the AAC has a seven year football/basketball TV deal with ESPN for $126 million, which is $18 million per year. Divided among 12 schools, that would be $1.5 million each per year.

The article also says UConn has a TV deal with SNY for about $1 million a year and a "media rights deal" with IMG for about $9 million, which expires next year.

If Art's calculations are correct, Notre Dame can make those bucks from stadium revenues in one game.

I think you underestimate the revenue from live attendance at schools that actually draw. At Notre Dame, for example, the weighted average ticket price is $115. Times 80,000 sold is $9.2M per game. Plus considerable revenue from sky suites and premium seats, plus parking, concessions, t-shirts , and the per game is closer to $12M, Times six home games per year. $70 million before ever considering TV money is a lot if money.

And there are schools filling stadiums with 100,000+ fans.

And you haven't even mentioned that alumni must donate money just to get football tickets. I would consider that income as football ticket money as well.

None of that applies to UConn and never will.

_________________Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable

I think you underestimate the revenue from live attendance at schools that actually draw. At Notre Dame, for example, the weighted average ticket price is $115. Times 80,000 sold is $9.2M per game. Plus considerable revenue from sky suites and premium seats, plus parking, concessions, t-shirts , and the per game is closer to $12M, Times six home games per year. $70 million before ever considering TV money is a lot if money.

And there are schools filling stadiums with 100,000+ fans.

And you haven't even mentioned that alumni must donate money just to get football tickets. I would consider that income as football ticket money as well.

None of that applies to UConn and never will.

Of course not. I quoted Art's post that was about numbers for Notre Dame. The schools that can charge money just for the right to purchase athletic tickets is probably small, but I would bet it is common practice among the football powers in the B1G and especially the SEC.

The linked article in the OP says the AAC has a seven year football/basketball TV deal with ESPN for $126 million, which is $18 million per year. Divided among 12 schools, that would be $1.5 million each per year.

The article also says UConn has a TV deal with SNY for about $1 million a year and a "media rights deal" with IMG for about $9 million, which expires next year.

If Art's calculations are correct, Notre Dame can make those bucks from stadium revenues in one game.

And how much does Notre Dame spend on football?
Last numbers I saw said that UConn spends more on women's basketball than the Irish. Before WBB State turned into a pile of turd they used to list school's gross amount & ranking in all-sports revenue and their gross & ranking in wbb expenditures. UConn was up at the top in wbb expenditures while most SEC schools were down the list despite gaudy numbers in all-sports revenue. And that's the point. For all the money that football makes very little of it helps womens' basketball. Alabama pays it's football coach more in one year than the entire WBB program spends in 2 or more years. Why hasn't all that football revenue translated into a top 25 wbb basketball team?

I think you underestimate the revenue from live attendance at schools that actually draw. At Notre Dame, for example, the weighted average ticket price is $115. Times 80,000 sold is $9.2M per game. Plus considerable revenue from sky suites and premium seats, plus parking, concessions, t-shirts , and the per game is closer to $12M, Times six home games per year. $70 million before ever considering TV money is a lot if money.

And there are schools filling stadiums with 100,000+ fans.

And you haven't even mentioned that alumni must donate money just to get football tickets. I would consider that income as football ticket money as well.

None of that applies to UConn and never will.

And neither has UConn had seasons worth of football records expunged due to academic fraud involving it's football team.

I can remember talking several years ago with an old and well-heeled fellow UConn alumni at a mens basketball game and he told me that lower-bowl season tickets at the XL required a high 5 figure donation. And his seats were end court.

Yeah, UConn basketball was only the first BCS team ever banned from post season play for flunking the Academic Performance Rating. Not to mention getting sanctioned and having its coach suspended for multiple games for recruiting violations.

And your conversation must have been ten or twenty years ago when they were averaging fourteen thousand. There's no shortage of tickets available at the XL these days.

Last numbers I saw said that UConn spends more on women's basketball than the Irish. Before WBB State turned into a pile of turd they used to list school's gross amount & ranking in all-sports revenue and their gross & ranking in wbb expenditures. UConn was up at the top in wbb expenditures while most SEC schools were down the list despite gaudy numbers in all-sports revenue. And that's the point. For all the money that football makes very little of it helps womens' basketball. Alabama pays it's football coach more in one year than the entire WBB program spends in 2 or more years. Why hasn't all that football revenue translated into a top 25 wbb basketball team?

I have no idea what your point is. UConn spends way more on WBB coaching salaries than anyone else. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

So your point is that because SEC schools make a lot of money on football they should overpay their WBB coaches?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the subject of this thread. Other than helping to explain UConn's revenue shortfall.

How long before it effects the women's basketball.? If something dosent change.

I would guess that they will just keep funding the program at the current level, even with Geno's high salary. That may hamstrung them later because they spend more on women's basketball salaries than any other school but their athletics department is not making the money that most P5 schools are. The effect will likely be seen when they have to hire Geno's replacement. At that point I don't think they will be offering a salary high enough to attract the big names that you would think would be interested in the job. Maybe hire one of his assistants in house and pay them less than the average going rate for a new coach in the BCS. That's a huge change from Geno's current salary.

Last numbers I saw said that UConn spends more on women's basketball than the Irish. Before WBB State turned into a pile of turd they used to list school's gross amount & ranking in all-sports revenue and their gross & ranking in wbb expenditures. UConn was up at the top in wbb expenditures while most SEC schools were down the list despite gaudy numbers in all-sports revenue. And that's the point. For all the money that football makes very little of it helps womens' basketball. Alabama pays it's football coach more in one year than the entire WBB program spends in 2 or more years. Why hasn't all that football revenue translated into a top 25 wbb basketball team?

I have no idea what your point is. UConn spends way more on WBB coaching salaries than anyone else. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

So your point is that because SEC schools make a lot of money on football they should overpay their WBB coaches?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the subject of this thread. Other than helping to explain UConn's revenue shortfall.

The point is that large amounts of football revenue don't seem to correlate at all to success in wcbb and yet the subject of football revenue is repeatedly brought up here, usually with a title much like the one used here, predicting a dire financial future and implying a dire future for the Huskies. Sure, ND has an elite level wbb team but look at the SEC. The bottom dwellers in that conference get an equal share of the TV money and yet fail to put a winning wbb program on a court.

I get that UConn doesn't have a huge amount of TV money from football. My point is so what? What good does it do to wcbb? Yeah, the SEC got 2 teams to the FF this past season but what have they done over the last ten years with all their money? Three teams total got to the FF. And they led the country in TV money all those years.
Several years ago I saw numbers on WBB State that said that UConn generated about 75 million in all sports and spent about 5-6 million on wbb. Alabama generated about 130 million and spent about 2 million on wbb.

Yeah, UConn basketball was only the first BCS team ever banned from post season play for flunking the Academic Performance Rating. Not to mention getting sanctioned and having its coach suspended for multiple games for recruiting violations.

And furthermore, UConn got penalized for a low APR.

Did you really need to say it twice?

UConn has met the standard since it was instituted
The APR rule was applied retroactively. That's why UConn got penalized.

Notre Dame willfully broke existing rules. Having entire seasons of games expunged from the NCAA record books suggests a major violation. UConn's athletes may not have been smart but at least they didn't cheat.

UConn's head coach got penalized because an assistant made too many phone calls to a recruit. Do you actually think that rises to the level of the academic fraud at Notre Dame, where employees of the athletic Dept wrote term papers for football players? And the sad part is that alumni contributions didn't drop one cent as a result. It kind of says a lot about the ethics taught in South Bend. They should carve "Just Win Baby" above the door to their locker room.

Yeah, UConn basketball was only the first BCS team ever banned from post season play for flunking the Academic Performance Rating. Not to mention getting sanctioned and having its coach suspended for multiple games for recruiting violations.

And furthermore, UConn got penalized for a low APR.

Did you really need to say it twice?

UConn has met the standard since it was instituted
The APR rule was applied retroactively. That's why UConn got penalized.

Notre Dame willfully broke existing rules. Having entire seasons of games expunged from the NCAA record books suggests a major violation. UConn's athletes may not have been smart but at least they didn't cheat.

UConn's head coach got penalized because an assistant made too many phone calls to a recruit. Do you actually think that rises to the level of the academic fraud at Notre Dame, where employees of the athletic Dept wrote term papers for football players? And the sad part is that alumni contributions didn't drop one cent as a result. It kind of says a lot about the ethics taught in South Bend. They should carve "Just Win Baby" above the door to their locker room.

I notice you need to say that it "suggests" a major violation, because it actually wasn't a major violation. It was an action by a student trainer helping a couple players, and they had all already been penalized or left the university. The school self reported the violations. No coach or staff person was implicated. In contrast to UConn where they actually were determined to be major violations involving intentional cheating by the head coach and lack of oversight by the university. Which of course is why vastly more serious penalties were imposed on UConn. Including a multi game suspension of the head coach.

Obviously at UConn nobody was helping the players with their schoolwork. They just let them flunk out.

I notice you need to say that it "suggests" a major violation, because it actually wasn't a major violation. It was an action by a student trainer helping a couple players, and they had all already been penalized or left the university. The school self reported the violations. No coach or staff person was implicated.

Having entire season(s) of games erased from the NCAA record books is a major penalty. I was trying to be nice. The person participating in the academic fraud was an employee of the athletic dept. The fact that they were also students is irrelevant.

At least UNC had the good sense to have their "academic counselors" be employed outside the athletic dept.

Well I suppose you're free to write any alternative facts you choose, Donald, but there is in fact an actual reality. And the reality is that despite your fantasies, the NCAA has an actual ranking of severity of violations, and UConn's were more severe.

And contrary to your bullshit that "UConn's head coach got penalized because an assistant made too many phone calls to a recruit." he actually got penalized because, among other things, he had an NBA agent helping him recruit a player and provided over $6000 in inducements. Plus that "too many phone calls" was actually 150 impermissible phone calls and 190 impermissible text messages to multiple recruits. And then the staff lied about it during the investigation. The NCAA summarized it as follows:

"As stated in the committee’s public infractions report, this case centers on the “extraordinary steps” taken by the university to recruit a top prospective student-athlete to its men’s basketball program. The director of athletics stated it was the “most intense” he has ever seen the head coach about the recruitment of a prospective student-athlete. The committee found that in his “zeal” to get the prospect admitted to the university and eligible to compete, the head coach allowed a booster, who was a certified agent by the National Basketball Association, to be involved in the recruitment process. Further, the committee found that the head coach “overlooked indications” that this booster might be breaking NCAA rules. Specifically, the booster provided the prospect with impermissible inducements, including the payment of at least a portion of the expenses for the young man’s foot surgery; the cost of his enrollment at a basketball academy; the registration fee for the SAT; as well as strength, conditioning and basketball training.

The men’s basketball staff was aware of the booster’s status as an agent and his relationship with the prospect. In fact, the coaches had frequent contact with the booster through approximately 2,000 phone calls or text messages with the agent throughout the recruitment process. Despite this regular contact, the men’s basketball coaching staff did not question the booster about his relationship with the prospect. In fact, the staff was sharing information about the prospect’s recruitment with the booster, knew of the booster’s frequent contact with the prospect, and was aware that the booster hoped to someday serve as an agent for the prospect.

In addition, members of the men’s basketball staff exchanged 150 impermissible phone calls and sent 190 impermissible text messages to prospective student-athletes. The majority of these were sent to the high-profile recruit at the center of this case.

Additional violations occurred when members of the coaching staff provided 32 impermissible complimentary men’s basketball game tickets to individuals responsible for teaching or directing activities with prospective student-athletes.

Further, during the investigation, the former operations director violated the principles of ethical conduct when he provided false and misleading information to NCAA enforcement staff during two separate interviews.

Based on the scope and nature of the violations, the committee found the head coach failed to promote an atmosphere for compliance and failed to monitor the program regarding phone calls, text messages and inducements provided by the booster."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: UConn wanted to be a football school. UConn wanted to be in a football conference. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

what, one fortuitous shot isn't enough?

Photobucket would tend to agree with your take.

But let me be serious for a moment. Football destroyed the Big East. That choice worked for some schools. It's not working for others. I have no sympathy for the ones it's not working for. (And no. I don't want UConn back. For that matter, I wouldn't want Rutgers back. Or BC. Well, maybe BC, if we can get a travel buddy for Creighton.)

Last numbers I saw said that UConn spends more on women's basketball than the Irish. Before WBB State turned into a pile of turd they used to list school's gross amount & ranking in all-sports revenue and their gross & ranking in wbb expenditures. UConn was up at the top in wbb expenditures while most SEC schools were down the list despite gaudy numbers in all-sports revenue. And that's the point. For all the money that football makes very little of it helps womens' basketball. Alabama pays it's football coach more in one year than the entire WBB program spends in 2 or more years. Why hasn't all that football revenue translated into a top 25 wbb basketball team?

I have no idea what your point is. UConn spends way more on WBB coaching salaries than anyone else. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

So your point is that because SEC schools make a lot of money on football they should overpay their WBB coaches?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the subject of this thread. Other than helping to explain UConn's revenue shortfall.

The point is that large amounts of football revenue don't seem to correlate at all to success in wcbb and yet the subject of football revenue is repeatedly brought up here, usually with a title much like the one used here, predicting a dire financial future and implying a dire future for the Huskies. Sure, ND has an elite level wbb team but look at the SEC. The bottom dwellers in that conference get an equal share of the TV money and yet fail to put a winning wbb program on a court.

I get that UConn doesn't have a huge amount of TV money from football. My point is so what? What good does it do to wcbb? Yeah, the SEC got 2 teams to the FF this past season but what have they done over the last ten years with all their money? Three teams total got to the FF. And they led the country in TV money all those years.
Several years ago I saw numbers on WBB State that said that UConn generated about 75 million in all sports and spent about 5-6 million on wbb. Alabama generated about 130 million and spent about 2 million on wbb.

It's the Southeastern Conference. The SEC football revenues are huge, but the bills to pay for the SEC FB programs travelling to bowls, BCS bowls, and NC games are huge as well. The facility upgrades for FB in the SEC look like Disney World compared to even many other Power 5 programs. The revenues earned go right back into facilities.

And the basketball facilities also get their fair share. Recent upgrades or complete new facilities for South Carolina, Ole Miss, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, and Arkansas just to name a few. The SEC boasts of at least five of the top 25 university-dedicated basketball arenas in overall capacity, and were 3rd this past season for the most programs in the top 25 largest average capacities, behind the Big 10 and ACC. For the WBB, the SEC is 3rd behind the Big 10 and Big 12 conferences. The basketball programs are all benefiting from the large revenues, but that's not just the end of the list....

SEC is as dominant across the country in baseball and softball as it has been in football, but those sports do not generate much total revenues. Still, the SEC leads the nation in those sports in both stadium sizes and luxuries, and constant upgrades in all associated appurtenances. In Baseball, the SEC had the top 6 average and total home game attendances in the nation, and 7 of the top ten. In softball, the SEC had 5 of the top 7, 6 of the top 11 (South Carolina was 11th ), and 9 of the top 25 top attendance averages in the nation.

And it goes on: SEC had 5 of the top 13 attendances in women's soccer, and 8 of the top 31: more in both cases than any other conference.

The revenues the SEC brings in from football are distributed to many sports, not just to basketball. And all the other programs benefit from it: at South Carolina alone, we've built state-of-art stadiums for both baseball and softball, built a new tennis complex, a state of the art academic enrichment center, an athletics administration building for the athletics village, new indoor and outdoor track & field complexes, etc. All in addition to whatever football & basketball facility upgrades that's been done. And most of the above were all initiated as recently as 2012. I can only imagine what the other SEC members have done/are doing as well.....

Last numbers I saw said that UConn spends more on women's basketball than the Irish. Before WBB State turned into a pile of turd they used to list school's gross amount & ranking in all-sports revenue and their gross & ranking in wbb expenditures. UConn was up at the top in wbb expenditures while most SEC schools were down the list despite gaudy numbers in all-sports revenue. And that's the point. For all the money that football makes very little of it helps womens' basketball. Alabama pays it's football coach more in one year than the entire WBB program spends in 2 or more years. Why hasn't all that football revenue translated into a top 25 wbb basketball team?

I have no idea what your point is. UConn spends way more on WBB coaching salaries than anyone else. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

So your point is that because SEC schools make a lot of money on football they should overpay their WBB coaches?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the subject of this thread. Other than helping to explain UConn's revenue shortfall.

The point is that large amounts of football revenue don't seem to correlate at all to success in wcbb and yet the subject of football revenue is repeatedly brought up here, usually with a title much like the one used here, predicting a dire financial future and implying a dire future for the Huskies. Sure, ND has an elite level wbb team but look at the SEC. The bottom dwellers in that conference get an equal share of the TV money and yet fail to put a winning wbb program on a court.

I get that UConn doesn't have a huge amount of TV money from football. My point is so what? What good does it do to wcbb? Yeah, the SEC got 2 teams to the FF this past season but what have they done over the last ten years with all their money? Three teams total got to the FF. And they led the country in TV money all those years.
Several years ago I saw numbers on WBB State that said that UConn generated about 75 million in all sports and spent about 5-6 million on wbb. Alabama generated about 130 million and spent about 2 million on wbb.

It's the Southeastern Conference. The SEC football revenues are huge, but the bills to pay for the SEC FB programs travelling to bowls, BCS bowls, and NC games are huge as well. The facility upgrades for FB in the SEC look like Disney World compared to even many other Power 5 programs. The revenues earned go right back into facilities.

And the basketball facilities also get their fair share. Recent upgrades or complete new facilities for South Carolina, Ole Miss, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, and Arkansas just to name a few. The SEC boasts of at least five of the top 25 university-dedicated basketball arenas in overall capacity, and were 3rd this past season for the most programs in the top 25 largest average capacities, behind the Big 10 and ACC. For the WBB, the SEC is 3rd behind the Big 10 and Big 12 conferences. The basketball programs are all benefiting from the large revenues, but that's not just the end of the list....

SEC is as dominant across the country in baseball and softball as it has been in football, but those sports do not generate much total revenues. Still, the SEC leads the nation in those sports in both stadium sizes and luxuries, and constant upgrades in all associated appurtenances. In Baseball, the SEC had the top 6 average and total home game attendances in the nation, and 7 of the top ten. In softball, the SEC had 5 of the top 7, 6 of the top 11 (South Carolina was 11th :D ), and 9 of the top 25 top attendance averages in the nation.

And it goes on: SEC had 5 of the top 13 attendances in women's soccer, and 8 of the top 31: more in both cases than any other conference.

The revenues the SEC brings in from football are distributed to many sports, not just to basketball. And all the other programs benefit from it: at South Carolina alone, we've built state-of-art stadiums for both baseball and softball, built a new tennis complex, a state of the art academic enrichment center, an athletics administration building for the athletics village, new indoor and outdoor track & field complexes, etc. All in addition to whatever football & basketball facility upgrades that's been done. And most of the above were all initiated as recently as 2012. I can only imagine what the other SEC members have done/are doing as well.....

Foolish me. I thought the purpose of Universities was to educate students.

Last numbers I saw said that UConn spends more on women's basketball than the Irish. Before WBB State turned into a pile of turd they used to list school's gross amount & ranking in all-sports revenue and their gross & ranking in wbb expenditures. UConn was up at the top in wbb expenditures while most SEC schools were down the list despite gaudy numbers in all-sports revenue. And that's the point. For all the money that football makes very little of it helps womens' basketball. Alabama pays it's football coach more in one year than the entire WBB program spends in 2 or more years. Why hasn't all that football revenue translated into a top 25 wbb basketball team?

I have no idea what your point is. UConn spends way more on WBB coaching salaries than anyone else. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

So your point is that because SEC schools make a lot of money on football they should overpay their WBB coaches?

Not sure how any of that is relevant to the subject of this thread. Other than helping to explain UConn's revenue shortfall.

The point is that large amounts of football revenue don't seem to correlate at all to success in wcbb and yet the subject of football revenue is repeatedly brought up here, usually with a title much like the one used here, predicting a dire financial future and implying a dire future for the Huskies. Sure, ND has an elite level wbb team but look at the SEC. The bottom dwellers in that conference get an equal share of the TV money and yet fail to put a winning wbb program on a court.

I get that UConn doesn't have a huge amount of TV money from football. My point is so what? What good does it do to wcbb? Yeah, the SEC got 2 teams to the FF this past season but what have they done over the last ten years with all their money? Three teams total got to the FF. And they led the country in TV money all those years.
Several years ago I saw numbers on WBB State that said that UConn generated about 75 million in all sports and spent about 5-6 million on wbb. Alabama generated about 130 million and spent about 2 million on wbb.

It's the Southeastern Conference. The SEC football revenues are huge, but the bills to pay for the SEC FB programs travelling to bowls, BCS bowls, and NC games are huge as well. The facility upgrades for FB in the SEC look like Disney World compared to even many other Power 5 programs. The revenues earned go right back into facilities.

And the basketball facilities also get their fair share. Recent upgrades or complete new facilities for South Carolina, Ole Miss, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, and Arkansas just to name a few. The SEC boasts of at least five of the top 25 university-dedicated basketball arenas in overall capacity, and were 3rd this past season for the most programs in the top 25 largest average capacities, behind the Big 10 and ACC. For the WBB, the SEC is 3rd behind the Big 10 and Big 12 conferences. The basketball programs are all benefiting from the large revenues, but that's not just the end of the list....

SEC is as dominant across the country in baseball and softball as it has been in football, but those sports do not generate much total revenues. Still, the SEC leads the nation in those sports in both stadium sizes and luxuries, and constant upgrades in all associated appurtenances. In Baseball, the SEC had the top 6 average and total home game attendances in the nation, and 7 of the top ten. In softball, the SEC had 5 of the top 7, 6 of the top 11 (South Carolina was 11th ), and 9 of the top 25 top attendance averages in the nation.

And it goes on: SEC had 5 of the top 13 attendances in women's soccer, and 8 of the top 31: more in both cases than any other conference.

The revenues the SEC brings in from football are distributed to many sports, not just to basketball. And all the other programs benefit from it: at South Carolina alone, we've built state-of-art stadiums for both baseball and softball, built a new tennis complex, a state of the art academic enrichment center, an athletics administration building for the athletics village, new indoor and outdoor track & field complexes, etc. All in addition to whatever football & basketball facility upgrades that's been done. And most of the above were all initiated as recently as 2012. I can only imagine what the other SEC members have done/are doing as well.....

Foolish me. I thought the purpose of Universities was to educate students.

It may very well be, but I think you stumbled into the wrong thread for that topic....

If athletics can generate income -- through enrollment, donations and alumni support -- then they do indeed improve education because they give the university more resources to work with.

If athletics did not aid the core mission of major universities, they would not be supported as they are now. In fact, if athletics hurt universities one would expect to see schools dropping down to Division III or eliminating sports altogether, but that doesn't happen, which tells me that the people running universities feel big-time athletics are a net positive for their operation.

If athletics can generate income -- through enrollment, donations and alumni support -- then they do indeed improve education because they give the university more resources to work with.

If athletics did not aid the core mission of major universities, they would not be supported as they are now. In fact, if athletics hurt universities one would expect to see schools dropping down to Division III or eliminating sports altogether, but that doesn't happen, which tells me that the people running universities feel big-time athletics are a net positive for their operation.

Clay, generally I agree with you. There is no question that intercollegiate athletics, even at the highest levels, can contribute to education in several ways. But it can also be a cancer. The University of Chicago recognized this many years ago. Even though it had the first Heisman award winner they dropped out of major sports . The Ivy League decided its core mission was being overshadowed by sports and withdrew from the highest levels. To be fair, Notre Dame, Stanford and Duke have so far been able to thread this needle. While each has had scandals relating to sports (The Duke Lacrosse team and the Stanford swimmer Brock Turner) these stories had more to do with privilege afforded athletes than they did with the sports programs themselves.

The problem comes when the mission of sports starts to override the mission of education. When it comes to football and men's basketball, the programs seem to be more for the alumni than the students. The games are played by individuals who often can't meet the educational standards of the school but are given a pass because of their special skill. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as they are held to the educational standards of the school once they are enrolled. Sadly, this is often not the case.

These sports also sometimes help administrators in raising the profile of the institutions in the minds of the public. But when it gets to the point that the highest paid employees are basketball and football coaches (often the most highly paid public employees in the state) sports have overridden the educational goals. They make money at the major conferences, but the ever escalating arms race for better practice facilities, stadiums and other related costs has diminished the financial benefit that flows to the educational pursuits..

To bring this back to UConn, trying to compete with other larger institutions has actually wound up hurting their overall finances. When the Big East expanded into football UConn believed this was a pathway to greater wealth. But when Miami, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Boston College and West Virginia realized there were greener pastures UConn was left with continuing high costs but declining revenues. The AAC will never generate enough football money to offset the costs. And this isn't just a problem at UConn. Cal has fallen on hard times by trying to chase sports dollars. Even with the big money coming from the Pac 12, the costs of paying off the football stadium renovation and fired coaches' contracts have left the program struggling financially. This has required Cal to cut some non-revenue sports in the past few years.

There is unquestionably a place for sports in the University experience. But Universities have to work hard to make sure they remember their primary reason for existence.

If athletics can generate income -- through enrollment, donations and alumni support -- then they do indeed improve education because they give the university more resources to work with.

If athletics did not aid the core mission of major universities, they would not be supported as they are now. In fact, if athletics hurt universities one would expect to see schools dropping down to Division III or eliminating sports altogether, but that doesn't happen, which tells me that the people running universities feel big-time athletics are a net positive for their operation.

Clay, generally I agree with you. There is no question that intercollegiate athletics, even at the highest levels, can contribute to education in several ways. But it can also be a cancer. The University of Chicago recognized this many years ago. Even though it had the first Heisman award winner they dropped out of major sports . The Ivy League decided its core mission was being overshadowed by sports and withdrew from the highest levels. To be fair, Notre Dame, Stanford and Duke have so far been able to thread this needle. While each has had scandals relating to sports (The Duke Lacrosse team and the Stanford swimmer Brock Turner) these stories had more to do with privilege afforded athletes than they did with the sports programs themselves.

The problem comes when the mission of sports starts to override the mission of education. When it comes to football and men's basketball, the programs seem to be more for the alumni than the students. The games are played by individuals who often can't meet the educational standards of the school but are given a pass because of their special skill. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as they are held to the educational standards of the school once they are enrolled. Sadly, this is often not the case.

These sports also sometimes help administrators in raising the profile of the institutions in the minds of the public. But when it gets to the point that the highest paid employees are basketball and football coaches (often the most highly paid public employees in the state) sports have overridden the educational goals. They make money at the major conferences, but the ever escalating arms race for better practice facilities, stadiums and other related costs has diminished the financial benefit that flows to the educational pursuits..

To bring this back to UConn, trying to compete with other larger institutions has actually wound up hurting their overall finances. When the Big East expanded into football UConn believed this was a pathway to greater wealth. But when Miami, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Boston College and West Virginia realized there were greener pastures UConn was left with continuing high costs but declining revenues. The AAC will never generate enough football money to offset the costs. And this isn't just a problem at UConn. Cal has fallen on hard times by trying to chase sports dollars. Even with the big money coming from the Pac 12, the costs of paying off the football stadium renovation and fired coaches' contracts have left the program struggling financially. This has required Cal to cut some non-revenue sports in the past few years.

There is unquestionably a place for sports in the University experience. But Universities have to work hard to make sure they remember their primary reason for existence.

Again, these are revenues generated primarily through athletic programs: thus, they are invested primarily back into those athletic programs that generate them. It's not like student tuition or state funding is going into the athletics.

It's really complaining about oranges not taking care of the apples. What does one really have to do about the other? Whether or not a football program goes 10-2 or 2-10 doesn't dictate whether the university it belongs to generates a great or poor quality education. The athletic revenues generated by Stanford University aren't going back into their academic facilities either......